With the recent news that ISA detainee, Selangor state assemblyman (Kota Alam Shah – my area!!!) Manoharan is thinking about quitting, the Selangor government is starting a campaign to get people to support his release (along with other ISA detainees as well) from detention. This is the first time a state government is organising a campaign against ISA.
. The campaign ends on 17th May, so hurry along! why 17th May? Its a day before the ISA review board meets, so the organisers plan to submit the signatures as proof of support.
As of lunch time today, there were 780 over signatures.
BMahendran published the list of programmes planned during the campaign, so Klangites, take heed:
6th May 2009
8.30am Signature Campaign at Morning Market Tmn Chi Liung
6.00pm Singature Campaign at Night Market Tmn Chi Liung
9.00pm Ceramah at Ganabathy Residence
8th May 2009,
8.30pm Ceramah at Depot Sukan-Port Klang
9th May 2009,
3.00pm Debate between GMI -vs- PEWARIS at MBPJ Civic Hall (fundrising event by GMI)
4.00pm Gathering at Depot Sukan-Port Klang in conjunction with the “Chitra Day” Chittirai Paurnami (edited by me) and Wesak
10th May 2009,
12.00pm Tea Party for ISA Detainees’ Wives and Mothers etc at M. Manoharan Service Centre
13th May 2009
8.30pm Forum at MBPJ Civiv Hall by ADUN Kg Tunku, Lau Weng San
16th May 2009
9.00pm Ceramah at Dewan Lingkungan Seri Setia (Near the Kontena) by ADUN Seri Setia, Nik Nazmi
9.00pm Ceramah at Stadium Melawati by PAS Nijar)
17th May 2009, 8.00pm Candle Light Vigil at Dewan Hamzah, Klang.
Person-In-Charge (for Klang event): Sdr. Tee Boon Hock (019-332 9092) or Sdr Kamarulzaman (Assistant for M. Manoharan: 017-8783 786)
While I don’t mind taking some time off to vote, some will consider it as a waste of time. Well, each to his own.
I wonder what DPM Muhyiddin meant by saying that Manoharan can still serve his constituency while under detention. Perhaps the DPM should try staying there for a month or two to contemplate how easy it is to still serve the constituents who are located 250km away, in the case of Manoharan. Of course, lawfully Manoharan is eligible because he is not convicted in court of law. But eligibility is not the issue here, its the responsibility and ability. NST quoted DPM Muhyiddin as saying:
“After winning an election, it’s time for him to get to work. He should be responsible enough and not step down unnecessarily as is being done by those from some political parties.
“The exceptions are when he is declared a bankrupt, convicted or dies.”
He said DAP’s Manoharan could still perform his duties despite being under ISA detention.
On reports that Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee M. Manoharan wanted to quit the Kota Alam Shah state seat in Selangor, Muhyiddin said democracy should not be abused.
“The people had made their choice during the election and now is the time to work for them. However, of late, there seems to be a trend in which certain parties are encouraging resignations without rhyme or reason.
“I don’t know what kind of party it is which claims to be fair to the people but acts to their detriment. The winning candidate should serve the people,” he said.
On Manoharan’s claims that being an ISA detainee it would be difficult for him to serve, Muhyiddin said Manoharan had until the next election to serve the people.
At the same time, I understand too that the Klangites know what they were getting into when the voted for a detainee. “Berani buat, berani tanggung”. Manoharan will be free in mid December when the detention order expires, unless Hishamuddin renews it for another 2 years. He already mentioned that Manoharan would not be released just because of the recent development and that there are “certain reasons” for keeping him in.
A blog revealed some documents purported containing transcript of the communication systems installed in the assembly hall. This was carried by Malaysiakini. The transcripts seems to indicate the more experienced Nga dictating/ordering and even issuing threats to the speaker Sivakumar.
Questions arise if the transcript are copied from the system. Was it tampered with as claimed by Ngeh? He claims the system is not secured and anyone could have accessed it.
Its alright if a first time wants to refer to more experienced person, especially since it was about 3 months after being selected as a speaker. But, as a speaker, Sivakumar should not be depending too much on the senior assemblymen.
Unless current state government releases the actual transcript from the system, we can’t say for sure.
Comments Off on speaker sivakumar threatened by Nga? »
Brave words from 11 year old Karan Dinesh, but I’m not sure if he understands what he means. For all intents and purposes, the workers in religious department have considered the kids as muslim due to the unilateral decision of the cowardly father (i really wonder how the people can even accept people like this into their religion, really downgrades the religion). So, would the boy take his on life to maintain his stand to die as hindu? even that is not possible now because the moment he dies, the jabatan agama fellows will be lining up to grab his body, armed with court order and police escort. As i mentioned earlier, the family better make plans to escape to other country. Get the political parties or Hindu Sangam to fund the cost. Or even start a “save Indira’s family” campaign to collect money and ship them off to overseas. Because, according to the committee set up to solve this problem, it will “take some time”. By then, the kids will be forced to study the religion and brainwashed.
The mother is living in fear because the kids may be snatched any time. The religious department delivered the notice to the school (is that legal?) hoping that the kids will be detained when they go to school. However, the mother had kept them away from school after this fiasco.
All she wants is for her children to be able to go to school and for the family to lead a normal life again. “My children can’t go to school now. I fear the school will turn them over to the Syariah Court so I am keeping them at home,” said M. Indira Ghandi, 35, today at a press conference.
… Muhammad Rizal since then has been trying to take custody of two of the children – Karan Dinish, 11 and Tevi Darsiny, 12 – from their mother.
He had already taken custody of the baby, Prasana Diksa through what Indira claimed the use of force.
She had lodged six police reports to date.
The government is attending to Indira’s situation and has formed a three-man committee comprising three Ministers to find an amicable solution.
The three are Ministers in the Prime Minister’s department Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon (Unity), Maj-Gen (R) Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom (Islamic Affairs) and Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S.Subramaniam.
The committee met Monday but offered little hope of an immediate relief to Indira.
Indira’s plea to the authorities was simple.
“I am worried for my children’s studies. My daughter is sitting for the UPSR exam. How is she to prepare for the exam. Their lives have been disrupted as a result of this. They can’t go anywhere as I fear they will be taken from me,” Indira said as her children sat beside her.
Indira said since the Syariah court failed to serve her with the notice to hand over the children to the father, it had served the notice to the school.
The school has been put in a spot and appeared inclined to hand over the children to the court and their father.
Indira said her marriage had run into problems earlier this year. They tried to reconcile but failed.
“Things came to a head on April 1 when he grabbed our infant child from our home. He took their birth certificates and some of my certificates as well.”
Indira said she learnt only of his conversion when she went to report the infant being forcibly taken away from her.
“At the police station, they informed us about the conversion,” she said.
Over the next 48 hours, Muhammad Rizal moved to convert the three children using their birth certificates and got the Syariah court to issue and order giving him custody of the children.
Indira said the infant is currently being cared for by her mother-in-law.
In an immediate comment, DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang said it it would be a while before the three-member committee find a solution to the problem.
“This is most unsatisfactory. The issue is clear for everyone to see. The children have been converted without their mother’s consent,” he said.
Lim felt Indira’s case should be a role model for the government’s “One Malaysia: People First, Peformance Now” slogan.
“Instead we are being given excuses. The government should put a stop to this type of cases by simply making the law clear,” he said.
DAP obviously see this as an opportunity to get some brownie points championing the rights of the people, but can’t blame them for the weakness/foolishness of the ruling coalition. Wonder what PAS says on this. Or UMNO, for the matter.
How about MIC? One representative is in the committee, so we hope to hear some positive words. MIC have chance to redeem itself a little bit, so it must make use of it.
Note that the boy got Malay and Islam mixed up. One wonders how that mistake happened. Bad coaching or his own understanding is like that?
Who to blame? I blame it squarely on the leaders (since the independence) of the country. Its their collective failure that lead to this kind of crime happening. They don’t have the guts to fix the loopholes in the law. All the members of parliament (living or dead) especially those who formed the two thirds majority are answerable for the crime committed by the father. The people in the attorney general’s office are also equally guilty of abetting this crime. Its time for Mahathir, Abdullah Badawi, Ling Liong Sik, Ong Ka Ting, Anwar Ibrahim, Samy Vellu, Subra, and whole lot of others to be rebuked and punished for failing the people of the country. Remember that being in the government means collective responsibility – you cannot plead ignorance or just make noise once you’re not in the cabinet/govt/party. I can’t remember anyone resigning over their stand on unethical conversion. So, the whole lot is guilty.
Of course the father is also guilty, but he merely acted cunningly by making use of the loopholes in the law. He just follow precedent set by others before him.
We still remember the ruling for Subashini’s case – the child can stay with the mother, but they are to remain as Muslim. Isn’t that cruel? Where’s the compassion in justice? Are we robots? Is their religion that rigid and cruel? Would the children grow up appreciating our country’s diversity or end up cursing it? Would they be true Muslims or “atas nama” only? Makes us think if the decision makers have thinking capacity or not.
The solution is simple – we Malaysians must ignore the conversion which makes a mockery of us. Label it null and void. initiate criminal proceeding against the husband for wife abuse. change the law within a month – make it a fast track case. in the meantime, suspend all conversion application so that more criminals do not pass through the loopholes. But I fear it will end up like Subashini’s case. The religious department and AG office will make use of the grossly unfair decision made by the court and deny justice to Indira and her kids. So, no justice, no fairness, no rights.
Koh Tsu Koon meanwhile faces the first crisis in his role Minister in PM Department in charge of Unity. He starts off with a meeting on Monday to find a fast solution. He admits that it would involve court proceedings.
A meeting was held on Monday to discuss the matter and those who attended the meeting had a better understanding on the issue, he added.
Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Religious Affairs) Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom were among those present at the meeting.
Also present were Malaysian Hindu Sangam president Datuk A. Vaithilingam and its Perak leader J. Vijayalingam.
Few months down the lane, another case will appear and we will start the whole process again.
Earlier, Sivakumar, who was waiting for his case to be called, was seen approaching assistant state legal adviser Zulkarnain Hassan, who had entered the courtroom at about 9.50am, but Zulkarnain avoided speaking to him and was later seen sitting with lawyers acting for the three independents.
A frustrated Sivakumar claimed that he tried to speak with Zulkarnain after friends identified him as his representative.
“But when he (Zulkarnain) came in, he refused to talk to me. I wanted to ask him so many things.
“I don’t even know his name or who he is. I don’t know who is (to be) my lawyer,” said Sivakumar.
Imagine your lawyer not interested to speak with you. It is weird actually. The State Assembly speaker is deemed to be part of state government by the Judicial Commissioner, while some say he is not since its explicitly stated that members of state assembly are not part of public service. Refering to NH Chan (former Court of Appeal judge):
I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Sub-sections (1) reads:
“(1) Notwithstanding any written law –
(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government…
(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State, a law officer … authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State … may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government…”.
As you can see, this sub-section is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the state government, not a public officer.
And sub-section (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:
“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party –
(a) by virtue of his office; or
(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney-General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer; a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer…”.
This sub-section only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is ‘may’ not ‘must’) be represented by a legal officer which could include the legal adviser of the state.
Therefore, there is nothing in section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the state legal officer.
In any case, section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a state hold office as a member of the public service? If he does, then he is a public officer.
Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:
“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise –
(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State.”
So now you know that the speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a state are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as public officers. Therefore, section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them.
The whole article seems to question the competency of the “novice” Judicial Commissioner, but that’s another story. Well, that’s NH Chan’s version, you may say. I guess we have to see what articles exists in the law to negate Chan’s arguments. Perhaps the JC’s ruling had such details.
If Speaker Sivakumar is considered government staff, then he must use the state attorney to represent him in court. Problem is, the state attorney also represents new MB Zambry against the State Assembly Speaker in another suit. So, question arises if the office of state attorney can discharge its duties well or fairly, because its responsibilities lies to the state, not to the individuals it may represent. Thus, one can’t be blamed for thinking that the state legal advisors will lean towards the new MB and penalise the Speaker.
Further more, I think the notion that one is forced to use a particular legal service flies in the face of our basic rights to justice. How can a person expect to have his fair day in court when he can’t even represent himself, or worse still is represented by someone he has no faith in? I might as give up and concede to the opponents.
Sivakumar is in deep trouble. The feeling is that he has “musuh dalam selimut” (enemy within) and surely will lose his cases.
I find it funny that DAP Penang is organising something called “Buy Rocket Help Hard Core Poor” programme which makes it open for attacks from others. Its essentially a plan to get the poor people to sell DAP’s newspaper and make some profit. The paper is sold for RM2, and the seller will earn RM1 for each paper sold.
Being in a state under PR’s control, surely DAP Penang is expected to come up with a more bigger programme. Perhaps they can help the poor to start selling newspapers (and snacks/drinks/fruits) instead of just DAP’s Rocket. I understand that through the program, the poor can get to see immediate cash, but one wonders how many people will buy the Rocket.
UMNO is already sharpening its claws – branding the move as Al-Arqam style.
UPDATE: The programme has been called off due to “lack of response”.
| 
Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email 
